IMO, those who are saying that "all preamps pretty much sound the same", are people who are comparing lower cost budget preamps with each other; things like comparing the budget line of Presonus to the same line of Focusrite, etc.

I'm not knocking these preamps, they are certainly usable, I've used them myself and the present respectable results ... but if you A/B either one of those lower cost preamps against something like a Millennia, Grace, ADK, or a Neve, you're gonna hear a difference, and if you don't, then maybe you need to continue to hone your listening skills.

One of the things I've noticed about the difference between higher end pre's and lower end models - besides the ability to drive the more expensive pre's harder without getting wizzly sonics - is what Kurt ( Kurt Foster ) mentioned in one of his posts above; and that is how these pre's end up sounding when you start combining multiple tracks recorded through them in a mix, stacking tracks and takes - in the cheaper budget models, the sonics start to get "cloudy" and often "thin" on the whole as the tracks stack up.. This is something I haven't noticed happening when using higher end preamps.

Whether this is due to the cheaper components, cheap power supplies, or the conversion stage(s) in these budget pre's, (or even all things combined), is not for me to say; one of our more tech savvy members ( ahem... Boswell , LOL) would have to chime in.

I think another weak point that should be mentioned is when people use the exact same mic for all their tracks; and in the home recording scene, more often than not, a cheap condenser is being used, as it's so often the only mic that the user owns, so they end up using it on everything they record... I think it's advantageous to switch up mics from track to track; even switching from a condenser to a 57 or 58 will help to alleviate all the tracks having the same sonic vibe.

IMHO of course.

Boswell (2015 thread #58052) wrote: There was also the point I have made several times in these forums that, whatever the quality of the mic and other gear, using the same mic and hence having the same sonic signature on every track results in a very tiring mix.

DonnyThompson, post: 441114, member: 46114 wrote: I think another weak point that should be mentioned is when people use the exact same mic for all their tracks; and in the home recording scene, more often than not, a cheap condenser is being used, as it's so often the only mic that the user owns, so they end up using it on everything they record... I think it's advantageous to switch up mics from track to track; even switching from a condenser to a 57 or 58 will help to alleviate all the tracks having the same sonic vibe.

Yes, it's something I've banged on about over the years in these forums. You can indeed record great-sounding tracks if you use a mixture of medium-level gear, as the individual shortcomings in the equipment are spread around the acoustic spectrum and dynamic range. However, it's important to include your room in the equipment list. One of the suggestions I make to untreated-bedroom recording artists who bring me their prized tracks to mix is, if you really have to do it this way, at least move the microphone around the room for each track, so in the mix you are not multiplying up the same room reflections as well as the gear deficiencies.

DonnyThompson, post: 441114, member: 46114 wrote: ...Whether this is due to the cheaper components, cheap power supplies, or the conversion stage(s) in these budget pre's, (or even all things combined), is not for me to say; one of our more tech savvy members ( ahem... Boswell , LOL) would have to chime in.

It's all of those, and a few others as well. I used to blame it on the design engineers until I started to take contracts from one or two of the medium-level companies, and found that the designers usually do all they can to turn out a decent-sounding prototype, only to have it wrecked in the production process in an attempt to minimize costs.

Boswell, post: 441115, member: 29034 wrote: at least move the microphone around the room for each track, so in the mix you are not multiplying up the same room reflections as well as the gear deficiencies.

That's a very good Idea.. I'll pass it along ;)

I have a WA-76 as well as an 1176. MOST of the difference is the headroom. The Warm breaks up a little quicker than the 'real' deal BUT the warm is audibly 2-3db quieter on higher gain settings. Something mentioned about having the voltage conversion outside the box. I would NOT say the Warm is better but it is usable in almost every situation. Its saturation is very 1176 and remains clear and doesn't smear.....which in the long run, no matter what you are using, if you can keep the signal from smearing leaving a device to the capture , you are miles ahead of the curve. Cleaning up smear, phase, odd order distortion and 60 (or 50) cycle noise is the key to large and in-yer-face recordings.

As for the manufacturing of systems....they all have to meet a price point somewhere or everything available would be $20K per unit. The choice of builders is sometimes an eclectic choice based on ones history with a certain builder, or sometimes as simple as wanting something else finished in red in the rack.

I laughed at the "preamp snob" comment. And here's why....It kinda has to meet a certain criteria in the home rack here.....Thats not to say that choosing different flavors isn't on the menu...no, and the reasons for these choices (for me) has become more technical the longer I work at this....Sometimes you want fast/precise/clean....sometimes slower/warm/edgy....etc. These are all things that come with a design. The circuit and its implementation in the device selected. So, how do know what's been left out? Boz said it right. The cutting begins at the manufacturing level not the design and its always to cut costs on both ends of the spectrum. Or you simply purchase gear than spares no cost. Of course this either lowers the number of tracks you can do at once or it forces you to choose pieces that are complimentary and that do what you need them to do and you're able to use them in your production within the realm of their limitations, using the very high-end stuff for the parts that are obvious in a mix. The ViPre is my first choice in a vocal chain. LA 2A behind it, U67/U87/U47/ELAM 251 in front and now we go to work.

DonnyThompson, post: 441114, member: 46114 wrote: IMO, those who are saying that "all preamps pretty much sound the same", are people who are comparing lower cost budget preamps with each other; things like comparing the budget line of Presonus to the same line of Focusrite, etc.

I'm not knocking these preamps, they are certainly usable, I've used them myself and the present respectable results ... but if you A/B either one of those lower cost preamps against something like a Millennia, Grace, ADK, or a Neve, you're gonna hear a difference, and if you don't, then maybe you need to continue to hone your listening skills.

One of the things I've noticed about the difference between higher end pre's and lower end models - besides the ability to drive the more expensive pre's harder without getting wizzly sonics - is what Kurt ( Kurt Foster ) mentioned in one of his posts above; and that is how these pre's end up sounding when you start combining multiple tracks recorded through them in a mix, stacking tracks and takes - in the cheaper budget models, the sonics start to get "cloudy" and often "thin" on the whole as the tracks stack up.. This is something I haven't noticed happening when using higher end preamps.

Whether this is due to the cheaper components, cheap power supplies, or the conversion stage(s) in these budget pre's, (or even all things combined), is not for me to say; one of our more tech savvy members ( ahem... Boswell , LOL) would have to chime in.

I think another weak point that should be mentioned is when people use the exact same mic for all their tracks; and in the home recording scene, more often than not, a cheap condenser is being used, as it's so often the only mic that the user owns, so they end up using it on everything they record... I think it's advantageous to switch up mics from track to track; even switching from a condenser to a 57 or 58 will help to alleviate all the tracks having the same sonic vibe.

IMHO of course.

Yup. I find they take eq better in the mix, and need less of it. Also they take boosts better, there just seems to be be more solidity or meat.

Boswell, post: 441115, member: 29034 wrote: I started to take contracts from one or two of the medium-level companies, and found that the designers usually do all they can to turn out a decent-sounding prototype, only to have it wrecked in the production process in an attempt to minimize costs.

I wish they would let the consumer decide a bit more. I'd gladly pay $600 for a $300 mic if it met the designers specs better.

We're starting to see much improved mid level gear I think than 10 years ago. hopefully the trend continues.

If companies could roughly half the Price of the best stuff out there and get 85% there sonically it'd be perfect price vs quality for a person like me.

There's too many other comprises particularly in the Acoustics of my and many home studios that the quality differnce may be noticable but not workable, if that makes any sense.

Davedog, post: 441689, member: 4495 wrote: Cleaning up smear, phase, odd order distortion and 60 (or 50) cycle noise is the key to large and in-yer-face recordings.

Smear and phase +100. There's a certain 'solidity' to the sound of a top end peice of gear.

Davedog, post: 441689, member: 4495 wrote: The ViPre is my first choice in a vocal chain. LA 2A behind it, U67/U87/U47/ELAM 251 in front and now we go to work.

Hmmm I got a 12k budget for a new ride, maybe I'll just walk, but rock with the signal chain you described.... Lol dreaming.

Warm audio has an la-2a, have you tried it??? I can only vicariously use a real la2 for the forseeable future......

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/WA2A?product_id=%7Bproduct_id%7D&adpos=1o1&creative=54989979481&device=m&matchtype=&network=g&gclid=Cj0KEQjw1K2_BRC0s6jtgJzB-aMBEiQA-WzDMc-6WdzazHneUxihu78nqzdQ0ZujA_cvuHuWFeOADQAaAlvd8P8HAQ

Davedog, post: 441689, member: 4495 wrote: I laughed at the "preamp snob" comment.

lol...it was a little tongue-in-cheek...especially if you take a look at my racks. Most of my stuff has been mid-level stuff up to getting the ISA 220...but you immediately regognise it has what the mid-level pieces don't. Whereas pres like my Eureka feel a little harsh and brittle if you push it a little hard, the ISA has more of a refinement of tone, much smoother and it doesn't feel like its going to break up if you push it a little, it definitely feels like there is more headroom to play with and less in your face so to speak.

I think it was Bos who made the point that using the same pre to record all tracks can have a thinning effect, and I cannot see myself tracking everything through the ISA anyway with only the one channel to play with.
You also make a good point Dave about everything having a place in the mix and using the better gear for the more prominent tracks, this is something that is on my agenda now I have a mix of gear at different levels of quality.

I think the anomalies of 'stacking' get very bad with certain plugins. Some stack much better than others. Particularly becuase plugins are identical you don't have the luxury of moving away from the mic, or have differences in similar hardware peices.

I've found that the waves ssl channel is great to use across many channels. Other than that I tend to try and spread things among a few different choice eq and compression plugins.

I've been saying for years I wish plugins would come with Abc versions or 'multi models' of a few different choices peices of the same gear.

Sean G, post: 441708, member: 49362 wrote: I think it was Bos who made the point that using the same pre to record all tracks can have a thinning effect

I am on the fence with this. I most definitely believe we should save the "beast pre-amp /chain" for the lead vox but on the other hand, how many great sounding songs have been fully tracked through example, a large format (everything through the same console) ?

That being said, if this is the case, is it the lack of being able to isolate (maybe hear as easy) because everything preamp-ish... is sounding so similar or consistent that we tent to reduce "fat" to get the lead in front?
Is there are nulling effect have happens to the current of the curves ?
Are we simply that much better off using boutique preamps today?

kmetal, post: 441709, member: 37533 wrote: I think the anomalies of 'stacking' get very bad with certain plugins. Some stack much better than others. Particularly becuase plugins are identical you don't have the luxury of moving away from the mic, or have differences in similar hardware peices.

I've found that the waves ssl channel is great to use across many channels. Other than that I tend to try and spread things among a few different choice eq and compression plugins.

I've been saying for years I wish plugins would come with Abc versions or 'multi models' of a few different choices peices of the same gear.

I definitely believe this. In fact, I think the more we stack, the worse everything sounds. Reminds me of the AI Beatles track. Yuck.

audiokid, post: 441710, member: 1 wrote: I am on the fence with this. I most definitely believe we should save the "beast pre-amp /chain" for the lead vox but on the other hand, how many great sounding songs have been fully tracked through example, a large format (everything through the same console) ?

That being said, if this is the case, is it the lack of being able to isolate (maybe hear as easy) because everything preamp-ish... is sounding so similar or consistent that we tent to reduce "fat" to get the lead in front?
Is there are nulling effect have happens to the current of the curves ?
Are we simply that much better off using boutique preamps today?

Of course you've had enough experience with a large format console to know that as things age and change some channels always come out sounding better or at least different than all the others.

I think the effect of the pre amp is exhaggerated in general. Change a mic, eq, or compresser, and you'll hear a much more significant differnce. This isn't to say pre amps aren't important, becuase they very much are.

If you've got a good quality tube, transformer, and solid state (transistor?) based pre amp your golden.

The difference between mid level and high end is 5-10x price and 10% in sonics. I put a Manley dual tube up against an art pro vla 2, on drum overheads. They were both good. The Manley more solid, the art a bit brash in the upper mids. I think a tube swap would narrow things even more.

Of course I used the Manley but was kinda surprised how decent the $300 art really was.

Vocals are really a free for all. I've used a eureka over the Manley before. I've used a 57 over an 87 and c-12 as well for vocals.

The most amazing pre I've ever used was a calrec p-12? I think was the model. It's the absolute only pre that I went holy crap 'that sounds like a record' ugh I hate that cliche but....

It's not just tone, it's dimension that you achieve on the higher end. I think that's really what people are chasing by stacking tracks, and are instead just canceling out some things, and increasing presence, not dimension.

All those amazing '70's guitar tracks weren't done by splitting to 3 amps, and doing multiple stacked space.

Sean G, post: 441708, member: 49362 wrote: I think it was Bos who made the point that using the same pre to record all tracks can have a thinning effect, and I cannot see myself tracking everything through the ISA anyway with only the one channel to play with.

I have 8 ISA preamps and have no problems using them at the same time.. but of course, they are used with different mics and not all on the same instrument.

My apologies to Bos...it was actually the same mic, not mic pre that was mentioned.

Apologies I should have read that better. :rolleyes:

Davedog, post: 441712, member: 4495 wrote: Of course you've had enough experience with a large format console to know that as things age and change some channels always come out sounding better or at least different than all the others.

Nice one Dave! Without doubt on that.

Thinking back and relating this to just as converters as they age, they become inconsistent too. I wonder how many of us actually change channels around to find the "best" ones a year or two after we've settled in on something.
I usually begin channel one with the kick respectfully down the strips until the vocals near the bus end. How about others on that?
So, while we get into a habit, we could actually be using a channel that is starting to die for a year or two and not bother to do comparisons between the rest >console strip, converters, 8 x 500 series pre's, EQ racked etc.

audiokid, post: 441717, member: 1 wrote: Thinking back and relating this to just as converters as they age, they become inconsistent too. I wonder how many of us actually change channels around to find the "best" ones a year or two after we've settled in on something.

I always try to change things up a little...whether its through the inputs of my mixer or the inputs of my multi channel interface, by never defaulting to the same input channel all the time.

I think as human beings we can be creatures of habit and I know personally I used to always plug in to the same channel if tracking a single track (usually channel 1) all the time until I consciously made a decision to switch things around.
I think of it as evening out the wear and tear a little...if something is going to crap out, chances are its usually the one that gets the most workout IMO.

Maybe I'm just a little OCD...

audiokid, post: 441717, member: 1 wrote: I usually begin channel one with the kick respectfully down the strips until the vocals near the bus end. How about others on that

Bass on track one then kick Ect for me. When I actually get to use a console.

There was a company who modeled an abbey road console and actually did all 32 ch individually.

I used to obsessively experiment w mics and pres, but now I'm confident enough where I'm looking to have fairly dedicated signal chains for general things. So in this case wear and tear differences wouldn't matter that much.

Lol Phil was at a studio that had like 14 u 47s back in the day. He of course tried them all, and then went to the owners office saying 'where are you keeping the good ones' lol the guy went into his drawer and grabbed a couple, and said these are the ones....

I seem to keep gear on average of 2-5 years so I'm not sure I ever put real wear on it. I think capacitors and IC chips are the first to go.

Even switching polar patterns can help give some variety to vocal doubles/stacks. That said not all switches are created equal and engaging the HPF on a mic can sometimes add some unwanted effects.

My first Neos, I've had two... had a detent center pan notch. After experiencing panning with that notch, knowing the power of M/S > being able to calibrate everything manually > SPL built me a Neos without that. :love:
I love SPL. They get it. They are leaders in so many area's of hybrid audio.

audiokid, post: 441717, member: 1 wrote: I wonder how many of us actually change channels around to find the "best" ones a year or two after we've settled in on something.

For live work I do the same all the time. It's easier when dealing with other techs..
But in the studio, I switch things around alot.
The only thing that I keep the same is that I always try to put the dynamic and ribbon mics in the ISA preamps because they have more clean power and headroom than my other preamps.
I have my starting points but they are just that.

pcrecord, post: 441731, member: 46460 wrote: For live work I do the same all the time. It's easier when dealing with other techs..
But in the studio, I switch things around alot.

Interesting comments on others, workflows.

Do you switch converter channels around as well?

I admit (in control room) I rarely switch anything around once its cabled in (modern world or way back in the "old console days". I am seriously anal about this.

Today, I do and can switch everything without touching a wire digitally, (via digital patchbay and routers) because its all connected with 25pin dsubs that break out to the tracking, mixing and mastering equipment.
The cabling is cut to length so there is very little left.
All the gear is racked and I don't move things around once its got its place.
The main power source, power bars, cables, external PSU are all methodically situated, tied , placed to optimize RF isolation too.
Converters (very important) are on their own back-up PS .
Even my standard DAW console is set up the same, all the time. Instrumentation and sub groups are all colour codded too.
I have everything locked in , templated so my workflow is seem-less and memorized.

Hard bypassed... I can crank up the volume to 10, start opening lanes and I hardly hear a hum until tranny and valve processing starts stacking . I know exactly what to expect from everything in the control room.

That being said... I do switch boutique pre-amps around (digitally as well though) but I even have my favourites. examples, an m-2b as my favorite preamp > Channel one would then be the main Vox.
I have a favorite LA2A and that would also share channel one and so on...

Over the past 30 years I have heard some converter lanes start to sound grainy. Not all converter channels are 100% exact. Some are thinner than others. The noise and inconsistencies are subtle at first, easy to miss, especially if you have noisy gear always on. Then, it would be near impossible to know (hear cause on effect) of anything in a problem based learning approach. Thus, shooting in the dark.Thus, blaming or giving credit to an inaccurate step or gear choice.

From a learning perspective (entertainment business) ... I would always prefer transformer-less high headroom summing and mastering consoles. Their job is to connect and pass audio without forcing a sonic character in every client mix. Example: If all you want is one valve in the lane, then that's exactly what you get.

When phase is all calibrated, lined up like a finely tuned symphony, "musically" working, (manual calibration is so much better to automated programs) ... this detail matters.
Not much different from the old tape days really. If you can hear it, we all know when we are in the sweet spot.

Pretty much all the equipment you guys have makes me drool.

I have an Mbox Pro and a Bluebird. It does the job, doesn't stop me from looking at rack porn though lol

audiokid, post: 441739, member: 1 wrote: Do you switch converter channels around as well?

Not really, but I have 4 ISA using the RME converters and 4 other using the UA 4-710 converters and my UA-610 go to the Mytek AD96.
If I ever buy a convert card for the ISA 428, It would be a nice comparaison to make with the 4-710 ;)

audiokid, post: 441739, member: 1 wrote: The main power source, power bars, cables, external PSU are all methodically situated, tied , placed to optimize RF isolation too.

That's one thing I should review...

Brother Junk, post: 441740, member: 49944 wrote: I have an Mbox Pro and a Bluebird.

What mathers is that you are doing it !!! We all started somewhere ;)
BTW the bluebird isn't a bad mic.. Give it the right preamp, it can shine on many applications...

pcrecord, post: 441745, member: 46460 wrote: BTW the bluebird isn't a bad mic.. Give it the right preamp, it can shine on many applications...

Yeah, I'm not complaining. I use an Art V3 to add tube to the path, and I'm happy with the "bang for the buck." I could honestly get away with a smaller outboard but it's so much nicer not to have to swap out inputs etc. To be honest, it feels really "pro." :)

But I would love a cabinet full of mics like some of you got. I daydream of being a gear junky.

audiokid, post: 441739, member: 1 wrote: Even my standard DAW console is set up the same, all the time. Instrumentation and sub groups are all colour codded too.

So do you have like a template? Do you have just one or a few different ones depending on things. Like 'rock band' 'acoustic gtr singer' ext Ect.

I know your not huge on plugins but do you have plugins pre loaded in your setup?

pcrecord, post: 441745, member: 46460 wrote: f I ever buy a convert card for the ISA 428, It would be a nice comparaison to make with the 4-710 ;)

I'm very interested in the option card..... I'll be watching closely if you take the plunge.

kmetal, post: 441751, member: 37533 wrote: I'm very interested in the option card..... I'll be watching closely if you take the plunge.

Thing is I don't need it. All my preamps are well served for now. So it would take a big rebate or a second hand one. But if I see one well priced, I'd probably snatch it anyway. lol

kmetal, post: 441751, member: 37533 wrote: So do you have like a template? Do you have just one or a few different ones depending on things. Like 'rock band' 'acoustic gtr singer' ext Ect.

I start with the stock ones that are with Samplitude/Sequoia. Then modify them. I have a variety. Full multitrack, Midi and mastering.

kmetal, post: 441751, member: 37533 wrote: I know your not huge on plugins but do you have plugins pre loaded in your setup?

I love plug-ins. I've never had an issue with them. I just don't get caught up in all the bloat like mass does with UAD or Pro Tools.
With the exception of a few Fabfilter, Samplitiude/Sequoia has pretty much all I need. Thats why I use Sequoia. Its a complete DAW system. There is zero need for DSP cards :)

$2800 for Seqioua vs $20,000 for Pro Tools full of issue and never ending. Its a no brainer.

GAWD Do I love templates. One click and most of the kind of sessions I generally do are in place complete with monitoring, plugs, routing, track names.....Yowsa!

Since its a beautiful day here and it WAS mentioned...Here's a couple of really porno recording pics.....Enjoy

is that your studio Dave? that looks like one of the 460's i sold you ......

Yes and yep. My standard acoustic guitar set-up. U87/C460 Manley DMMP no compression.

Davedog, post: 441768, member: 4495 wrote: Since its a beautiful day here and it WAS mentioned...Here's a couple of really porno recording pics.....Enjoy

Keep that audio porn coming Dave...love it.

Thanks Sean ! HAH! I have a small studio compared to some. But it is entirely functional for what it does in this space.

Here's the anchors in the racks.....Comps on the left.....preamps on the right.....conversion and patchbays....there's an eleven rack not shown....neither are the Avid Artist Mix and Artist Control nor is the Toft ATB8.....But when it gets down to it, these are just the volume controls for the mics to get into the DAW. The MICS are the real stars and the placement of these is the secret before ANYTHING else happens......But you know this. I post these things for any newbies who might be cruisin through

Nice set up my friend...one could enjoy many a long hour in your studio by the looks of things.

I like your desk as well from the earlier shot...I have not seen one like that before...is it custom built and if so, did you build it yourself?

You just cannot have too much rack space IMO.

Looks fun Dave! Dying to try that little double wide unit in the 500 rack. I spent a lot of time w Manley tube pres, I know them well. Great for overheards and warming up di keys.

I really really like the sound of a calrec pre/ Rosetta converter. The Rosetta is 'that sound' you hear I think on a lot of records from the last decade.

May I ask how come you have both the avid omni and HD IO?

audiokid, post: 441765, member: 1 wrote: With the exception of a few Fabfilter,

What fab filter ones do you find most valuable. I have them on the list, I was looking at all the pro series, the limtiter, and Saturn multiband distortion. Which is basically 80% of fabfilters collection. I really only want what I'll need.

Can't wait to hear SAMs plugins...!!!

Sean G, post: 441775, member: 49362 wrote: Nice set up my friend...one could enjoy many a long hour in your studio by the looks of things.

I like your desk as well from the earlier shot...I have not seen one like that before...is it custom built and if so, did you build it yourself?

You just cannot have too much rack space IMO.

Its comfy. The desk is custom built. I did not build it. It was on craigslist here for many many months and the price continued to go down. I had a different desk when I had a mixer and I had custom racks I did build at the time. I decided I wanted more room for people in my room so I took it all apart, upgraded all the cabling and the patch bays, sold the desk and the board, took the racks apart except one and bought this desk for an embarrassing low number. Its much better than before. I can rehearse my bands in the room, record five at once if needed, all-in-all a win-win. If (or when) I build a new room, I will remodel this desk to be more space efficient for sitting in a window area. Plus its a little tall.

kmetal, post: 441778, member: 37533 wrote: Looks fun Dave! Dying to try that little double wide unit in the 500 rack. I spent a lot of time w Manley tube pres, I know them well. Great for overheards and warming up di keys.

I really really like the sound of a calrec pre/ Rosetta converter. The Rosetta is 'that sound' you hear I think on a lot of records from the last decade.

May I ask how come you have both the avid omni and HD IO?

I HIGHLY recommend the Retro hardware. ALL of it. The Doublewide is a peach. When I eventually redo that 500 rack I'll get a second one as well as a second Grace 502. The rack will become a 10 space and I'm pretty sure a pair of Neve's will appear as if by magic. 1073's.......and more than likely an SSL stereo buss comp to fill out the other two holes.

The Rosetta is attached to the Eleven rack Thats all it does. I use my Eleven as a stereo analog device and the Rosetta as its converter. It makes it simple and I can do 192 while the digital on the Eleven is limited to 96 At least mine are....... To reamp ANYTHING is to plug and play or to record from the Eleven is as simple as assigning it a track.

The Omni is my master device. Everything clocks from here. Its also my playback master. And theres four channels of conversion available. I don't use the preamps although they aren't bad at all. The HD 16 I/O is the analog I/O. This gives me 20 simultaneous tracking.
The first 16 tracks on the patchbay run through this directly to PT. The outputs run to my headphone distro system and are available in the PT I/) on the PT mixer. I can assign ANYTHING in a mix to the phones with ZERO delay. It comes right off the converter and never runs THROUGH PT its just assigned there as a feed to the phones. All of the artists can select what they choose to hear in their phones through the remotes. I have six and they are 16 channels. On a cat5e cable from a main distro unit. This is the only Ber&@^##!(ger piece I own and it works flawlessly. Even sounds good. A bit better than units at 3 times the price.

Davedog, post: 441781, member: 4495 wrote: The Rosetta is attached to the Eleven rack Thats all it does. I use my Eleven as a stereo analog device and the Rosetta as its converter. It makes it simple and I can do 192 while the digital on the Eleven is limited to 96 At least mine are....... To reamp ANYTHING is to plug and play or to record from the Eleven is as simple as assigning it a track

Sick this is exactly how I'm planning on using the eleven rack! Well minus the Rosetta just an RME for now.

Retro, can't wait. They may a 176 which is an 1176 w tubes, which seems awsome.

Lol magically appearing 1073's. A magician never reveals his secrets.

I'm still a bit unclear how your getting a zero latency headphone feed? Those beerthinger systems are nice I tried my buddies one day.

Davedog, post: 441781, member: 4495 wrote: Its comfy. The desk is custom built. I did not build it. It was on craigslist here for many many months and the price continued to go down. I had a different desk when I had a mixer and I had custom racks I did build at the time. I decided I wanted more room for people in my room so I took it all apart, upgraded all the cabling and the patch bays, sold the desk and the board, took the racks apart except one and bought this desk for an embarrassing low number. Its much better than before. I can rehearse my bands in the room, record five at once if needed, all-in-all a win-win. If (or when) I build a new room, I will remodel this desk to be more space efficient for sitting in a window area. Plus its a little tall.

Very nice score on the desk !...well done there by the looks of it.

I went the DIY route...I wanted something similar to an Argosy style with 8 RU racks on either side and a space to sit my monitors on top, so 2 sheets of MDF, a few metres of black vinyl and about 20 hours later I came up with this.

The racks are actually 9 RU each. I even managed a tuck & roll style padded armrest on the front to make it comfortable.

Finished off the sides with a nice piece of laquered dress pine just like a bought one.

The black powder coat steel frame sides came from a cheap computer desk that gave up its life as a donor.

The room I am in needs a little re-arranging to get it out of that corner it is sitting in at present.

Gotta have a comfortable place to be creative....;)

Well done on the desk Sean.

Kyle.....The headphone distro unit is the only thing hooked to the analog outs on the 16 I/O converter. So the latency is the same as what's being seen in PT HD in the PT mixer. Which even with a bunch of plugs and virtual instruments never gets over 2 samples.

Missing the vipre up at my old studio. Matter of fact, missing the damn studio... Getting that itch again...